Citation Nr: 0732025
Decision Date: 10/11/07 Archive Date: 10/23/07
DOCKET NO. 05-03 982 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia,
South Carolina
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to
include as secondary to service-connected disabilities.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
Appellant
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
M. Prem, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from March 1977 to November
1998.
This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
on appeal from a June 2004 rating decision by a Regional
Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). A
notice of disagreement was received in September 2004, a
statement of the case was issued in December 2004, and a
substantive appeal was received in January 2005.
The Board notes that the veteran also appealed the issue of
entitlement to service connection for depression. The RO
issued a September 2006 rating decision that granted service
connection and a 30 percent rating effective March 31, 2004
(the date of the receipt of the claim). The granting of
service connection constitutes a full grant of the claim (the
veteran has not disagreed with the rating or effective date).
As such, the issue is not before the Board at this time.
The veteran presented testimony at a Board hearing before the
undersigned Veterans Law Judge in November 2006. A
transcript of the hearing is associated with the veteran's
claims folder.
The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management
Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the
appellant if further action is required.
REMAND
The veteran is claiming that her hypertension is either
directly related to service or is secondary to service-
connected disabilities. The veteran stated at her November
2006 Board hearing that doctors have told her that her
hypertension is due to her service connected disabilities;
but none of them have provided her with a specific written
opinion. In the veteran's September 2004 notice of
disagreement, she pointed out that she had several in service
blood pressure readings that were high or borderline high.
In the case of a claim for disability compensation, the
assistance provided to the claimant shall include providing a
medical examination or obtaining a medical opinion when such
examination or opinion is necessary to make a decision on the
claim. An examination or opinion shall be treated as being
necessary to make a decision on the claim if the evidence of
record, taking into consideration all information and lay or
medical evidence (including statements of the claimant)
contains competent evidence that the claimant has a current
disability, or persistent or recurring symptoms of
disability; and indicates that the disability or symptoms may
be associated with the claimant's act of service; but does
not contain sufficient medical evidence for VA to make a
decision on the claim. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.159(c)(4).
In view of the veteran's contentions, the Board believes that
a medical opinion as to causation is necessary to fully
assist the veteran with her claim.
Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions:
1. The veteran should be afforded VA
examination for the purpose of
determining the etiology of her
hypertension. The claims file must be
made available to the examiner for review
in connection with the examination.
Following a review of the relevant
medical evidence in the claims file, to
include the service medical records and
post-service medical records; the medical
history obtained from the veteran; the
clinical evaluation; and any tests that
are deemed necessary, the examiner should
be asked to respond to the following:
a) is it at least as likely as not
(a 50 percent or more likelihood) that
the veteran's hypertension was manifested
during service or within one year of
discharge from service?
b) is it at least as likely as not
(a 50 percent or more likelihood) that
the veteran's hypertension was caused by,
or aggravated by, a service connected
disability or disabilities?
2. After completing any additional
development deemed necessary, the RO
should readjudicate the veteran's claim
with consideration of all evidence in the
claims file. The RO should consider
direct service connection and secondary
service connection. The RO should issue
a supplemental statement of the case and
afford the veteran an opportunity to
respond. Thereafter, the case should be
retuned to the Board for appellate
review.
The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and
argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded.
Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law
requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of
Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court
of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or
other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious
manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2006).
_________________________________________________
ALAN S. PEEVY
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the
nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a
decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal.
38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2007).